Dogs and small children

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Link

The woman is charged with manslaughter, which, in my estimation, is correct.  If the crown could prove intent to harm the child it should be murder.

I hope the dog(s) will not be put down.  It was not the dog's fault.  If you leave children alone with large (or small for that matter)  dogs, you cannot predict that nothing will happen.  Kids and dogs are a bad mix unless there is a responsible adult present.  The article puts it very well.

The dogs are Huskies.  This is only a few steps removed from arctic wolves.  Animals are animals, and don't think like us, and have no reason, unless very well trained indeed, to see us as anything but another animal.  I would trust a child with a well-trained Nanny Dog (Staffordshire Terrier) before any other breed, and even then, I would not leave an infant alone with one.  Even worse, the child was restrained.

[joshriddle 29]

Kids and dogs are a beautiful mix in my opinion! But here's a question they didn't ask.

How was the dog raised?

You see, if that dog was treaten with cruelty, then that dog is, one day or another, going to turn on someone of the family. And if treaten with care and love, that is what you get out of a dog. Or it could also have been a situation that the dog felt threatened by the baby.

I have a Pit Bull/ Jack Russel mix, she has the broadest body of a dog I have ever seen, and it is true, Pit Bulls are the toughest and most powerful dogs in the world, mine could pounce right on someone and rip them to shreds if she wanted to, but she is the sweetest thing in the world. You should see her, she wiggles so much she gets so happy when we come home, or when someone comes over! So 90% of the time, it is not the dog, buth the human.

[Duke87 1,070]

Eh. I personaly find it difficult to consider the mother culpable here. Most people would think of their dogs as lovable and friendly, not as the sort of animal that would suddenly decide to maul a baby. Pet owners get emotionally attached to their pets, so they naturally want to believe that they own a "good dog". 

In other words, this incident goes against what would normally be expected. You can't really blame anyone for anything in such cases.

Although, I do raise an eyebrow at the fact that the mother is only 17 and the grandmother is only 37. That ain't right.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Eh. I personaly find it difficult to consider the mother culpable here. Most people would think of their dogs as lovable and friendly, not as the sort of animal that would suddenly decide to maul a baby. Pet owners get emotionally attached to their pets, so they naturally want to believe that they own a "good dog". 

In other words, this incident goes against what would normally be expected. You can't really blame anyone for anything in such cases.

Although, I do raise an eyebrow at the fact that the mother is only 17 and the grandmother is only 37. That ain't right.

quote>

So she was 20? thats not bad.

I think they will find it very hard to prove intent for murder.

Negligence? of course  in not puting the car seat up were the dog could not reach it eaisly.

[-Lexus- 2]

So what exactly did the girl do wrong in order to get a manslaughter charge? 

 Seriously, criminal neglect isnt even the case here. I mean, if the dog is trained well (and according to the article, it was trained well) you dont expect it to attack a baby. I dont even think it was really attacking the baby. I guess it just wanted to play and played a little to rough. How is that the fault of the mother? Or anyones fault for that matter? It was just a terrible accident. Just like when a baby chokes in its sleep or falls of the stairs because of some reason, you dont charge anyone for that now do you? 

I think everyone is overreacting because a baby died and babies are cute.  

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Children younger that 10 and a dog is a recipe for heartache. I love dogs and know how to train them, but no matter how much training they are given, they should never be left around kids. unsupervised. Even a Chihuahua can do lasting damage to a child, even if less physical and more mental.

Don't get me wrong, though. There are certain breeds that are more comfortable around children, and they are usually small, getting no bigger than a Schnauzer (which are great dogs for kids).

Barbarossaquote>

Best post so far, Red.

However, I have owned Class I (gun) dogs for over 25 years.  Most of them were setters, and one was a field-strain Cavalier King Charles spaniel.  Duffy, the CKC Spaniel was a love sponge, but he had his moments.  The others were 2 Red Irish, one Gordon, and two Irish Red and Whites.  As a responsible dog owner, I would leave none of these alone with any child under the age of 12.  People who do that are just asking for trouble.

Dog breeds that are safest with children are:  English Staffordshire Terrier and his American cousin some strains of which may be called Pit Bulls, but that is a matter of training;  St. Bernard, the traditional family protector.  I can't really think of any that don't have a strike or two against them.  One of my neighbours in Alcona had a St. Bernard that was put down because he would lure children to himself with friendly overtures then attack them.  Drufus was a one-man dog, and his owner had a hard time when he had to be put to sleep. 

One of my setters was poisoned.  He recovered, but would attack any male except me after that.  He died of liver cancer two years later, caused by the poisoning, no doubt.  Poor Paddy only lived four years.  But you know, there are no "vicious" setters in nature.  They are such goofs, though, that hey can easily get in trouble by being over friendly.

No dog, no matter how well trained. is predictable in all circumstances.  Never, ever, ever take a chance on a dog with small children.  Sometimes what kids do in all innocence can be considered an attack by a dog.

The Quebec police are having the dogs evaluated, and if found to be aggressive, they will be put down.  There really are no resources to retrain dogs like this except at well-funded rescue operations such as Best Friends (Dogtown) in Utah.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So what exactly did the girl do wrong in order to get a manslaughter charge?   quote>

She had a 3 week old baby that was strapped in a car seat and she set that seat down on a floor in a room with Huskies in it.   This is called putting your child in harm's way.

That might have been okay with some dogs.  But that baby wasn't around long enough for anyone to know how the dogs would react.   And, as was pointed out, Huskies aren't that far away from wolves.

The dog I had as a kid was a fox terrier / beagle mix.   He weighed about 12 pounds and was all bark but no bite.   One day a friend of my mom's came over to visit and brought her infant daughter with her.  They didn't have car seats in those days so, they put on the kid on the couch and pushed the back of a chair against it so the baby couldn't roll over.  My mom and her friend proceeded to have some tea and chat.

All went well until the baby started to wake up and began to whimper.   My dog decided this was something that needed to be taken care of so he went to my mom's friend and started scratching her on the arm.   He knew it was my mom's friend's issue to deal with, not my mom's.   But the friend figured she would wait until the baby was fully awake so she didn't respond.  The dog started barking at her.  Still the baby's mother wouldn't go pick up the baby.

Finally the dog decided he had had enough.  If someone wasn't going to do something he would.  So he jumped up on the couch and started licking the baby's face. 

Naturally the baby started shrieking.   The dog was only 12 pounds but he weighed more than the baby.   Fortunatelly, he didn't do any damage other than to scare the kid.

Thing is, although that dog was gentle and hadn't attacked anything other than a mouse, he easily could have done some damage, even though he was just trying to help.   A baby that small shouldn't have a dog on top of it, even if it is a nice, lightweight dog.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Meg

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So what exactly did the girl do wrong in order to get a manslaughter charge?   quote>

She had a 3 week old baby that was strapped in a car seat and she set that seat down on a floor in a room with Huskies in it.   This is called putting your child in harm's way.

That might have been okay with some dogs.  But that baby wasn't around long enough for anyone to know how the dogs would react.   And, as was pointed out, Huskies aren't that far away from wolves.

The dog I had as a kid was a fox terrier / beagle mix.   He weighed about 12 pounds and was all bark but no bite.   One day a friend of my mom's came over to visit and brought her infant daughter with her.  They didn't have car seats in those days so, they put on the kid on the couch and pushed the back of a chair against it so the baby couldn't roll over.  My mom and her friend proceeded to have some tea and chat.

All went well until the baby started to wake up and began to whimper.   My dog decided this was something that needed to be taken care of so he went to my mom's friend and started scratching her on the arm.   He knew it was my mom's friend's issue to deal with, not my mom's.   But the friend figured she would wait until the baby was fully awake so she didn't respond.  The dog started barking at her.  Still the baby's mother wouldn't go pick up the baby.

Finally the dog decided he had had enough.  If someone wasn't going to do something he would.  So he jumped up on the couch and started licking the baby's face. 

Naturally the baby started shrieking.   The dog was only 12 pounds but he weighed more than the baby.   Fortunatelly, he didn't do any damage other than to scare the kid.

Thing is, although that dog was gentle and hadn't attacked anything other than a mouse, he easily could have done some damage, even though he was just trying to help.   A baby that small shouldn't have a dog on top of it, even if it is a nice, lightweight dog.

quote>

How many babies get mauled by dogs every year? How many babies get killed by pets every year? Not that many. So, logical assumption of the parents was that the dog wouldnt harm the baby. They thought their dog was a well trained dog, which is also probably the case and that only makes this a tragic accident. But nothing more then that. An accident. The fact that the baby was strapped to a car seat is completely irrelevant. The baby was 3 weeks old, even if it wasnt strapped to a seat it couldnt have crawled away or anything. The dog would still have killed the baby, but somehow strapping it to the seat makes it manslaughter and if the baby was just laying on the floor it would have been an accident. Seriously, this is just prosecuting someone for having a dog and a baby. 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Nucks8 1]

Hmmm.... I'm in the middle here.

By law, she should be charged with involuntary manslaughter.

But come on! She didn't know it was going to happen( even though it's common sense).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Alright, enough platitudes and woulda, coulda, shoulda.  How many of you have owned dogs and for how long.

I have had six dogs over 25 years.  I have heard it all and seen a lot.  Dogs are not reliable around little kids.

[Duke87 1,070]

Never for me. My father insists that animals belong outside.

We've got some allergy issues with pets in the family, anyway.

[Zelgadis 638]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body

Alright, enough platitudes and woulda, coulda, shoulda.  How many of you have owned dogs and for how long.

I have had six dogs over 25 years.  I have heard it all and seen a lot.  Dogs are not reliable around little kids.

quote>

I would add that little kids are not reliable around dogs either.  Yet another reason not to leave them alone together.  

ISF

[Msprintz 25]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So what exactly did the girl do wrong in order to get a manslaughter charge? 

 Seriously, criminal neglect isnt even the case here. I mean, if the dog is trained well (and according to the article, it was trained well) you dont expect it to attack a baby. I dont even think it was really attacking the baby. I guess it just wanted to play and played a little to rough. quote>

It was mentioned that one of the dogs was locked in a cage nursing puppies, so it is possible one of the other dogs was being protective and thus attacked the baby.  Either way you slice the case it's not murder and there's no way any court could possible prove it was. 

Just a tragic accident and nothing more, hopefully they'll get the dogs back ( which is the right thing to do ). 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

My Auntie Jeannie loves Shar peis (pronounced shar pays). After her first shar pei was run over, she adopted a shelter shar pei. Brutus, the shelter dog, bit my sister around the eye for no reason. Poor Rissy had to go to the hospital. I never forgot about that but Rissy was quick to forgive.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

That is actually faulty logic, IMO.  The number of infants wounded and/or killed by a dog is low because anyone with a brain in their head knows that you do not leave a child (especially an infant or toddler) alone with dogs in an unsupervised environment.  To do so is negligent, plain and simple.

Barbarossa

quote>

Faulty logic, yes, but thats how humans think. They have this image in their heads of dogs being loyal, friendly and safe pets so they did not anticipate this. That image was only reinforced by the fact that the dog wasnt aggressive before. It simply never occurred to them this might happen. Is that a reason to prosecute a teenage mother who just lost her baby with something as heavy as manslaughter? Way to traumatize someone into a lifelong depression. 

[Empowered One 41]

I think it's only just to charge the mother for creating a situation for something like that to happen. Who on earth puts a kid in restrains and leaves it alone? Not to mention that restraining kids causes traumas at a young age, a child of that age should be looked after 24/7, especially with dogs. Dogs are pack animals. You, as there master they will listen to, however, when a new familymember arives in the form of a baby, the dog will commonly think of it as competition. Therefor dogs CAN be ggresive towards kids.

Typical cause&consequence where ignorance or lack of knowlegde was once again at a high price.

[Dannibee 138]

Hmm, my parents used to always let the dog cuddle up to me when I was a baby, they were still in the house though, and it was an Staffordshire Bull Terrier. One of the best dogs around children.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Another name for the English Staffordshire Terrier is the Nanny Dog.  In the late 18th and into the 19th century when kids were seen and not heard, and often raised by a governess, a Nanny Dog was the regular baby sitter.  I don't know what training went into this, but I know it was done.

In any case, manslaughter is the right charge.  The child was endangered in a reckless, thoughtless manner.  Ignorance is no excuse before the law.  If you have dogs and an infant, it is dangerous to the child and totally unfair to the dogs to put them in this situation.  All the breast beating and heart's bloodshed will not alter the facts.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In any case, manslaughter is the right charge.  The child was endangered in a reckless, thoughtless manner.  Ignorance is no excuse before the law.  If you have dogs and an infant, it is dangerous to the child and totally unfair to the dogs to put them in this situation.  All the breast beating and heart's bloodshed will not alter the facts.

quote>

So you prosecute people for being ignorant and dumb? Since when is ignorance a crime? 

No, this is just society going wild over a teenage mother who lost her child in a tragic accident. People cant accept that so they search for someone to blame, in this case the poor child. This is just society being stupid and wanting 'revenge' for the death of a baby. 

[hamsterTK 93]

No, this is just society going wild over a teenage mother who lost her child in a tragic accident. quote>

Bingo

I think many people have a need to be angry about something all the time.

[Empowered One 41]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

In any case, manslaughter is the right charge.  The child was endangered in a reckless, thoughtless manner.  Ignorance is no excuse before the law.  If you have dogs and an infant, it is dangerous to the child and totally unfair to the dogs to put them in this situation.  All the breast beating and heart's bloodshed will not alter the facts.

quote>

So you prosecute people for being ignorant and dumb? Since when is ignorance a crime? 

No, this is just society going wild over a teenage mother who lost her child in a tragic accident. People cant accept that so they search for someone to blame, in this case the poor child. This is just society being stupid and wanting 'revenge' for the death of a baby. quote>

To be more exact: This is society blaming the teen mom for being a neglative mom instead of having given the teen mom propper education about why teens shouldn't have kids at early ages, possibly preventing it from ever happening in the first place.

That's where current society's stupidity comes in: Blaming the effect while overlooking it's causes.

Most people tend to be blind to their actions because looking in the mirror of live is something considered too painful to handle.

Originally posted by: hamsterTK

Bingo

I think many people have a need to be angry about something all the time.quote>

Well, when was the last time you saw anything positive in the mainstream media? People somehow think that humanity thrives on negative news. >_> Sometimes I think it's just a way to cover people's flaws by telling them it could be worse in the world and anything resembling a utopia is never gonna happen. Nice wishful thinking there.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: afstandopleren

To be more exact: This is society blaming the teen mom for being a neglative mom instead of having given the teen mom propper education about why teens shouldn't have kids at early ages, possibly preventing it from ever happening in the first place. 

That's where current society's stupidity comes in: Blaming the effect while overlooking it's causes.

 Most people tend to be blind to their actions because looking in the mirror of live is something considered too painful to handle.quote>

 This was not the because the mother is a teenager. This could have happened to anyone. There is no one at fault here. Scapegoating is pointless and prosecuting her as well. The baby remains dead. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

So you prosecute people for being ignorant and dumb? Since when is ignorance a crime? 

quote>

It is a principle of our legal system that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

 This was not the because the mother is a teenager. This could have happened to anyone. There is no one at fault here. Scapegoating is pointless and prosecuting her as well. The baby remains dead. 

quote>

This is not a matter of scapegoating.  It is a matter of the law.  Since the mother will be tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, she can easily get off with a slap on the wrist.  Nevertheless, the manslaughter charge will really catch her attention.

To address some of the other points made in this thread recently:  Teen mothers are pretty bad ideas.  We have sex eduction in the schools but that doesn't prepare a girl for a guy who wants to ride bareback;  The "grandmother" is very much at fault for allowing her daughter to carry the baby to term.  It was a stupid move no matter what the curé said.  He doesn't  play the game (theoretically) so he shouldn't make the rules.

I feel sorry for the girl, who will now bear this burden for the rest of her life.  Life lessons like this should not be had at this age.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: afstandopleren

To be more exact: This is society blaming the teen mom for being a neglative mom instead of having given the teen mom propper education about why teens shouldn't have kids at early ages, possibly preventing it from ever happening in the first place. 

That's where current society's stupidity comes in: Blaming the effect while overlooking it's causes.

 Most people tend to be blind to their actions because looking in the mirror of live is something considered too painful to handle.quote>

 This was not the because the mother is a teenager. This could have happened to anyone. There is no one at fault here.

quote>

Really? Because it sure seems like the people who failed to control their dogs and assumed they're nothing but cuddly friends are at fault to some degree.

[hamsterTK 93]

Children younger that 10 and a dog is a recipe for heartache.quote>

I guess you never had a dog as a kid, or you were attacked by one? Babies, toddlers, or child who does not know how to behave around pets(like a visiting friend or relative) shouldn't be left unsupervised, sure.

But I'm pretty damn sure a 10 year old can safely be around a pet dog...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

A 10 yo isn't safe around anything unsupervised.  To think otherwise is to be opening the door to difficulty. quote>

That's underestimating them.  Many 10 year olds are quite competent in many ways.

Furthermore, my uncle bred and trained guard dogs (primarily Rotts), with pups garnering $2k a piece.  NO ONE in their right mind leaves an adolescent (let alone an infant) unsupervised around dogs. quote>

If you are talking about trained guard dogs, maybe.  But most adolescents are certainly competent to handle most family pets.

A lot has to do with when and how the dog was raised.   We got a puppy when my siblings and I were 6, 8, and 10.  This puppy couldn't do anything to us if he tried.    He grew up as we grew up and there wasn't a problem.

Not accusing, but I wonder if you are under the assumption that children are smarter than, well... children.  A false assumption.quote>

I think it's insulting to underestimate someone just because they happen to be a child.  Most children are more aware of their surroundings than people give them credit for.  For instance, for centuries, children have been responsible for animals.  Mostly farm animals, granted, but it still takes some knowledge and skill to take care of them.   I know that the average 10 year old farm kid knows more about it than I do!